It is fascinating how judgmental this article is. In England the only gods we now worship are up there in the pantheon of finance, but in other countries having your daily life scrutinised and dictated by a random set of rules that were decided upon centuries and centuries before your great-grand-mother was even born is still a reality. The Turks know better than us what it is like to live under religion's yoke, they've chosen a secular state and are fighting to preserve it, who are we to tell them they are hypocritical?

I agree with you. My point is, in our secular Western societies, comfortably ensconsed in our armchairs, we prefer to play the "freedom of thought" card to secure large markets rather than help others follow us on the hard path that gave us this very freedom of thought. That's where hypocrisy really lies.

Red symbolizes purity and innocence. Banning red painted lips or nails of attendants in national carrier only shows the increasing sentiment of religious fervor. Turkey is one nation which can boast of her long history of being secular in the Islamic block. How come one society which is known for its open and liberal culture can backtrak and grow the fondness for a less dynamic conservative approach!

So fly around the globe, north or south, with your red fin and pastel leaps and hear people sing the song 'We All are One'.

Why is this even newsworthy ?
To understand why this manufactured controversy is just plain ridiculous, let us look at the facts on cabin crew grooming rules on Singapore Airlines, one of the top rated airlines in the world. The Wikipedia artice on Singapore Girls, the iconic flight attendants of the airline says the Singapore Airlines cabin crew are NOT permitted to wear their hair open but to tie it up in a bun to look professional and are permitted NO flashy jewelry or visible tatoos and are permitted to wear only bright red lipstick ONLY with no pink or pastel colours allowed.
In the same vein, Turkish Airlines now requires female flight attendants to wear pastel coloured lipstick ONLY, not bright red colours as the former look more natural that the latter. This has nothing to do with religion, everything to do with professionalism and the rules that go with it.
A few months back, Turkish Airlines was involved in a similar controversy when pictures of one of the proposed uniforms was leaked online and was used as further evidence of the so called Islamization of Turkey. Except British Airways' old uniform, which consisted of three quarters skirt and a hat shows even less skin than the Turkish Airlines' proposed uniform.
The question is, how come Singpore Airlines and British Airways are not called thoeocratic ?

The answer is: because neither Britain nor Singapore are Islamic, and in recent years the only major theocratic movements have been exclusively in Muslim countries or among Muslim communities.

Now, that doesn't mean it's to judge Turkey or Muslims in general (it isn't), but it isn't completely illogical for people to be upset when Turkish Airlines makes these changes since it *could* be part of a bigger change whereas nothing in Singapore indicates theocratic movement.

Basically, idiots are overreacting, although they mean well. And others are responding with outrage when they should just roll their eyes and move on.